Are you learning Koine Greek, the Greek of the New Testament and most other post-classical Greek texts? Whatever your level, use this forum to discuss all things Koine, Biblical or otherwise, including grammar, textbook talk, difficult passages, and more.

I believe that there will be an individual that will rise up to power, and will be known as the anti Christ but the fact is that every government has an authority figure. It could be a dictator, a King or a president but in the end this person finds his power and authority in those who support him. Ultimately I believe that the anti Christ is a group whether it be the UN or the European Union or maybe a religious organization but that would be the least on my list of possibilities.

sid4greek wrote:is then "knowledge" in the Catalan translation not as good a rendering as "truth" in the English version?

That English version is not a literal translation -- the Greek is simply oidate pantes = "you all know." I think different translators have tried to cope with the slight oddity of there being no object of "know" but my own opinion is that "you all have knowledge" is closer to the literal meaning although it's very likely that what is meant is "knowledge of the truth" (compare the following verse), so I don't see much difference between the two. There does seem to be a variant reading, however, which is reflected in the Latin translation, and is the later Greek reading, oidate panta = "you know all things."

By oddity I simply meant the grammatical oddity of using oida, which I would say is usually transitive, without any direct object, not even one that's implied by the context (although I might be missing something and he means "you all know (about those people and events I'm referring to)".

If I remember correctly, the consensus here was that the hoti's earlier on in this chapter with grapho were "that" instead of "because." What about in 21? Here, the first two hoti's make more sense to me as "because" (perhaps contrasting why he's writing to this group rather than the group that left -- could the letter be a letter of support saying you guys are right?) but I don't know about the third one. There "that" makes a lot of sense to me but I doubt that hoti would switch meaning like that, so it possible that "every lie is not from the truth"* refers to those events in some way? Or am I reaching here?

* We all agree, right, that the scope of the negative is that it means "there is no lie such that that lie is from the truth" and not "there is some lie such that that lie is not from the truth"?

By oddity I simply meant the grammatical oddity of using oida, which I would say is usually transitive, without any direct object, not even one that's implied by the context (although I might be missing something and he means "you all know (about those people and events I'm referring to)".

The reason for the question mark was because I thought that it was more than slightly odd.

You said:

If I remember correctly, the consensus here was that the hoti's earlier on in this chapter with grapho were "that" instead of "because.

I believe that is correct.

You said:

What about in 21

Good question. I think that I will spend some time on this one before I respond.

modus.irrealis wrote:By oddity I simply meant the grammatical oddity of using oida, which I would say is usually transitive, without any direct object, not even one that's implied by the context (although I might be missing something and he means "you all know (about those people and events I'm referring to)".

If I remember correctly, the consensus here was that the hoti's earlier on in this chapter with grapho were "that" instead of "because." What about in 21? Here, the first two hoti's make more sense to me as "because" (perhaps contrasting why he's writing to this group rather than the group that left -- could the letter be a letter of support saying you guys are right?) but I don't know about the third one. There "that" makes a lot of sense to me but I doubt that hoti would switch meaning like that, so it possible that "every lie is not from the truth"* refers to those events in some way? Or am I reaching here?

* We all agree, right, that the scope of the negative is that it means "there is no lie such that that lie is from the truth" and not "there is some lie such that that lie is not from the truth"?

This is interesting....the Catalan version seems to overcome this problem by translating the verse:

I am not writing to you to tell you THAT you do not know the truth, but to tell you that THAT you know it and THAT no lie comes from the truth.

In verse 20 we see the conjunction at the beginning of the verse. Could this conjunction suggest a change in tone in John's writing?

When hoti is casual in form the term "because" is used and when hoti is declarative the term "that" is used. I believe that it is possible here that their was a change in tone in John's writings.

Maybe I am reaching but what are your thoughts?

GTM

I try to avoid putting too much weight on the versification because it was added so much later to the text. But could you explain further about the change of tone? I'm not sure in which direction you mean for the change.

But now that I read it again I think I was misled by the comma that's in my edition between the αὐτήν and καί. I'm thinking now that ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος... coordinates with that αὐτήν rather than the previous ὅτι and so it means something like "I did not write to you because you don't know the truth but because you know it and (because you know) that every lie..." This seems to be the understanding of some translations and it seems to make more sense, although I don't know how common it would have been in Greek to coordinate a pronoun with a hoti-clause like that. It does sound kind of odd in English.

19They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us.

20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.

21I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

I lean strongly towards the idea that we can measure the emotional connection in this particular text. When John spoke of those in verse 19 it was a declarative formula. Possibly exclamatory. In Verse 21 we see a shift in the writing from a declarative idea to a much more passive or casual formula or one of compassion. I believe that the conjunction but is helping to establish that contrast.

This could be the reason for the shift in Johns writing. Once again I am reaching. He seems to do that in this letter or sermon or what ever we regard this writing as being.

You said:

If I remember correctly, the consensus here was that the hoti's earlier on in this chapter with grapho were "that" instead of "because." What about in 21? Here, the first two hoti's make more sense to me as "because" (perhaps contrasting why he's writing to this group rather than the group that left -- could the letter be a letter of support saying you guys are right?) but I don't know about the third one. There "that" makes a lot of sense to me but I doubt that hoti would switch meaning like that, so it possible that "every lie is not from the truth"* refers to those events in some way? Or am I reaching here?

I think I see what you're saying. How would you understand the ὅτι πᾶν ψεῦδος ἐκ τῆς ἀληθείας οὐκ ἔστιν in terms of a because-clause? I'm not sure how it can be a reason for his having written to them.

I am still reading chapter 2 and when I read verse 22 I just can't understand the contextual meaning of the question:

tis estin ho feistes?

this question appears all of a sudden in the text and so breaks, so to speak, the flow of the previous discourse. I don't know if you too get this feeling?

as for the contextual meaning of the question:

to me it seems that someone is accusing the writer and company of liars...quite possibly the people who decided to leave their "community"...possibly mere speculation from my part.

why did they leave anyway? any clues? as I am reading the letter, I get the feeling that the people who had left the community did not live a "christian" life, but the author does not mention anything specific...am I right? The author seems to rely on shared knowledge taht we - readers in the 21st century- don't have.

PS:

thanks for all the contributions to this forum because it has been highly enriching!

1 John has none of the formal features of a letter. Many of the commentators that I have read on that particular issue suggests that 1 John was a written sermon. As I think about this abrupt disruption or what ever we choose to call it, is it possible that John has recorded on paper, a discussion that he was having with others?

in 1 John 1:5 why did the writer find it necessary to say, "God is light and in Him is no darkness at all"?

GTM

ouvdemi,a

some comments about "at all":

1) "at all" is an emphasiser and so
2) "at all" emphasises the fact that "there is no darkness in God" since "darkness" and "at all" in the Greek text agree in both gender and number,
3) interestingly, the Italian translation of the text (The Gideons International) does not add this emphasiser; perhaps, the translator did not think it necessary to "add" it in the text.
4) emphasisers are used in a text to "highlight" an idea expressed in the text, showing us that the empahasised idea had a relevant place in the author's context. In our case "skotia" is the issue.

and he is the expiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2

and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.

Should have given this in my last post.

Sorry!

GTM

so we have two renderings of the same Greek word....

- the Greek word includes both meanings of propitiation and expiation, but English seemingly doesn't have a word which includes the two concepts. So we have a problem. is this why some may use propitiation and others expiation?? Why?

Propitiation implies expiation, but expiation doesn't refer to God's anger. Clearly, Christ removed sin (i.e. expiation) and thus God was made propitious to us. So how come translators just use only part of the meaning of the word? can't they translate the Greek word as both expiation and propitiation ?

are translators deliberately excluding one of the two for some "doctrinal" reason?

Just a quick heads up guys
You have another lurker out here : ) My Greek knowledge is pretty limited, but hopefully I won't stay that too much longer. I've collected all your posts so far, and plan on catching up to at least these last posts. If you don't mind backtracking a bit I'll ask a question or two when the time comes. Probably will not be too difficult for you guys from what I've read so far. I saw the thread almost died, or at least one or two of you thought it might, so am glad that it did not. So, thanks for hanging in there, and for taking your time : ) I do have several books, but am not confident enough in my skills to know beyond a doubt what I will be talking about : ) My favorite so far is George Ricker Berry (SP) and am looking over several Grammar books at the moment. Let me know you guys plan on finishing the project, and maybe going into second and third John next??? : ) I need the studies
Thanks Guys
Bill